What's the point of packing the court?

[TheBear]

Wow... ok, let’s spell it out for you. Weigh the consequences of the justices’ decisions according to how they affect the overall well-being of the public. That’s how you determine whether a justice is good or bad for the best interests of the people.

So, forget about rulings based on the upholding and adherence to the Constitution? No. Whatever one deems as "good or bad for the best interests of the people", (btw- that opinion will vary from individual to individual), is the job of the legislature. Even though many people, (on both sides), wish the SCOTUS was an extension of the legislature, it's not. The SCOTUS is part of a checks and balances system. Without it, either party could, (and probably would), run roughshod over the people. We'd quickly become a banana republic.

 

[loveofourlord]

So, forget about rulings based on the upholding and adherence to the Constitution? No. Whatever one deems as "good or bad for the best interests of the people", (btw- that opinion will vary from individual to individual), is the job of the legislature. Even though many people, (on both sides), wish the SCOTUS was an extension of the legislature, it's not. The SCOTUS is part of a checks and balances system. Without it, either party could, (and probably would), run roughshod over the people. We'd quickly become a banana republic.

Except they have always made exceptions. Under strict constitutional reading payote should be legal, but they chose including many of the conservative judges that the state has a vested interest in making that illegal religious freedom or not.

 

[gaara4158]

So, forget about rulings based on the upholding and adherence to the Constitution? No. Whatever one deems as "good or bad for the best interests of the people", (btw- that opinion will vary from individual to individual), is the job of the legislature. Even though many people, (on both sides), wish the SCOTUS was an extension of the legislature, it's not. The SCOTUS is part of a checks and balances system. Without it, either party could, (and probably would), run roughshod over the people. We'd quickly become a banana republic.

Again, which rulings? I completely agree that the scotus should be nonpartisan.

 

[KCfromNC]

So, forget about rulings based on the upholding and adherence to the Constitution? No.

Well, yeah, judicial review by the Supreme Court is not found in a strict reading of the Constitution, but at this point it has kinda become tradition.

 

[hedrick]

Well, yeah, judicial review by the Supreme Court is not found in a strict reading of the Constitution, but at this point it has kinda become tradition.

This sort of makes originalism self-defeating, doesn't it?

 

[KCfromNC]

This sort of makes originalism self-defeating, doesn't it?

Being internally contradictory has never been an issue for other far-right talking points. No reason to think now's the time for it to start.

 

[variant]

I'm sure there are quite a few so-called progressives who still think that Roberts and Kavanaugh are conservatives, but they've shown themselves to be in the middle, at best.

Reliably siding with modern Republicans doesn't make a judge conservative.

In fact, the election controversy basically tells us the Republican party are a group of anti democracy radicals, not conservative in the least.

 

[grasping the after wind]

In light of all the rulings of these Republican appointed SCOTUS Justices over the years, and especially Chief Justice Roberts, is there really any need for court packing?


Discuss....

Can't have any conservative standing in the way of subverting the Constitution can we?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Can't have any conservative standing in the way of subverting the Constitution can we?

Doesn't seem to be any need for them to stand in the way...

...certainly not any desire.

 

[Sketcher]

Reliably siding with modern Republicans doesn't make a judge conservative.

Not on all issues, but there are quite a few important ones that the Republicans are conservative, and right, about.

In fact, the election controversy basically tells us the Republican party are a group of anti democracy radicals, not conservative in the least.

It tells us that anti-democracy radicals have infected the party, and it tells us that too many within the party were misled by the authoritarian and petty Donald Trump. While I was disappointed in the loss, the upside is we can now be rid of him.

 

[variant]

Not on all issues, but there are quite a few important ones that the Republicans are conservative, and right, about.

Maybe you should be specific about where the court is disappointing you.

If I have to guess it makes it harder to know exactly what we're talking about.

 

[NotreDame]

Wow... ok, let’s spell it out for you. Weigh the consequences of the justices’ decisions according to how they affect the overall well-being of the public. That’s how you determine whether a justice is good or bad for the best interests of the people.

Yes, I particularly enjoy spelling endeavors. Yet, it seems to me, you are spelling a different word than you originally sought to spell.

Your original point was: “I think evening out the ratio of liberals to conservatives on the Supreme Court will be a crucial step toward moving our country in a direction that’s best for the People, not just the Republican elites.”

Your original point wasn’t “whether a Justice is good or bad for the best interests of the people.”

Your original point was seeking to achieve some equilibrium, a balanced “ratio” of “liberals and conservatives” on the Court as a “crucial step” for the “best interests of the people.” Maybe at some point you can actually get around to “spell it out” how such a “ratio” is gonna get to the “best interests of the people.”

Regardless, your view expressed above isn’t an improvement from your original point.

“Weigh the consequences of the justices’ decisions according to how they affect the overall well-being of the public.”

First, this is a terrible way to evaluate a legal opinion. Legal opinions are to interpret what the law says. Evaluating whether a legal opinion has correctly interpreted a law based on “how they affect the overall well-being of the public” is like interpreting the Bible to say there isn’t any hell, since to do so is to the detriment of the “well being” of the many people who are gonna party there for eternity.

The Court is to tell us what the law says.
If the law has a negative impact on the people, then it is up to the democratic process, the legislature passing a law, ameliorating the existing law that is negatively impacting people.

SCOTUS isn’t to be guided by John Stuart Mill’s utilitarianism. If any branch of government exists to utilize such a philosophy, it is the legislature and executive branch, who are vested with law making powers and the power to sign/veto a law based on such considerations.

Neither SCOTUS nor the Justices operate in a democratic manner and were not conceived to do so. They aren’t to be or behave in a democratic manner. The executive and especially the legislative branch are to behave in a democratic manner, as they are, by design, elected by the people through the ballot to represent their interests and legislate, and directly answerable to the people by the ballot box. And it is these two branches, by design, who are to behave, if they choose, in a manner that is in the best interests of the people, the best interests of the people who elected them to the legislature.

SCOTUS exists, detached from the people, independent of the people, for the purpose of determining what the law says free from the passions, interests, prejudices, of the electorate. SCOTUS was made independent of the people for the very purpose of being free from their interests, free from the pressures of the people, to be free from the pressure of the ballot box, in evaluating what the law says.

The “best interests” of the people, in the U.S. system, is a SCOTUS that adheres to determining what the law says, not politicking of what is in the “best interests of the people.”

 

[Pommer]

Not on all issues, but there are quite a few important ones that the Republicans are conservative, and right, about.

Like, say, “states’ rights”?
SCOTUS seems to think so.

 

[NotreDame]

Except they have always made exceptions. Under strict constitutional reading payote should be legal, but they chose including many of the conservative judges that the state has a vested interest in making that illegal religious freedom or not.

What are you talking about? What “strict constitutional reading” means “peyote should be legal”?

And the decision was Employment Division v. Smith, written by Justice A. Scalia, and his opinion does not rest upon “the state has a vested interest in making that illegal religious freedom or not.”

His majority opinion was not without controversy back then, a controversy that persists today, with conservatives back then and today deriding the opinion as faulty. The opinion, shortly after it was handed down, precipitated what we know today as RFRA laws. Indeed, it was the RFRA that Hobby Lobby invoked for relief from a certain aspect of the ACA on the basis the law implicated their religious beliefs/practices, and they won because of RFRA.

RFRA was perceived as restoring the law regarding religious freedom/exemptions that existed before Employment Division v Smith.

 

[loveofourlord]

What are you talking about? What “strict constitutional reading” means “peyote should be legal”?

And the decision was Employment Division v. Smith, written by Justice A. Scalia, and his opinion does not rest upon “the state has a vested interest in making that illegal religious freedom or not.”

His majority opinion was not without controversy back then, a controversy that persists today, with conservatives back then and today deriding the opinion as faulty. The opinion, shortly after it was handed down, precipitated what we know today as RFRA laws. Indeed, it was the RFRA that Hobby Lobby invoked for relief from a certain aspect of the ACA on the basis the law implicated their religious beliefs/practices, and they won because of RFRA.

RFRA was perceived as restoring the law regarding religious freedom/exemptions that existed before Employment Division v Smith.

Well if we take religious freedom to the level the supreme court has lately, then payote is a drug used for religious ceremonies, to limit is to fringe upon their religious rights.

 

[jayem]

Let's not blur or redefine terms. For the purpose of this particular discussion, "packing the court" specifically means adding to the number of SCOTUS justices. My underlying question is - Based on rulings over recent years, what's the point?

The point of expanding the federal judiciary is to lower the workload, and allow more cases to be heard. It should be a matter of practicality--not politics. Which means judges should be added at some district and courts of appeal levels as well as SCOTUS. But as regards SCOTUS: There have been 9 justices since 1869. The US population back then was about 40,000,000. Our population is now 330,000,000. 8 times the people will of necessity generate many, many more cases. Many of which will raise legal questions that would benefit from a high court opinion. SCOTUS now gets about 8,000 cert petitions a year. And can only hear about 80. Can't we do better than 1%?

I posted about this earlier. How about increasing the Court to 14 justices, divided into 2 panels of 7 justices each? SCOTUS 1 is presided over by the Chief Justice. SCOTUS 2 is headed by the most senior associate justice. Cert petitions are distributed equally to both panels. Each panel chooses what cases they'll hear by a rule of 3. (A case will be accepted if 3 justices on the panel want to hear it.) There's no need for a courtroom anymore. Oral arguments will all be conducted by electronic conferencing. Which will save time and money. If 4 of the 7 justices on the panel concur on a ruling, that will be decisive. This scheme will double the number of cases that the Court can hear each term. It's still a small percentage of the petitions that come in. But it's more efficient, and we the people will get better value from our high court.

 

[gaara4158]

Yes, I particularly enjoy spelling endeavors. Yet, it seems to me, you are spelling a different word than you originally sought to spell.

Your original point was: “I think evening out the ratio of liberals to conservatives on the Supreme Court will be a crucial step toward moving our country in a direction that’s best for the People, not just the Republican elites.”

Your original point wasn’t “whether a Justice is good or bad for the best interests of the people.”

Your original point was seeking to achieve some equilibrium, a balanced “ratio” of “liberals and conservatives” on the Court as a “crucial step” for the “best interests of the people.” Maybe at some point you can actually get around to “spell it out” how such a “ratio” is gonna get to the “best interests of the people.”

Regardless, your view expressed above isn’t an improvement from your original point.

“Weigh the consequences of the justices’ decisions according to how they affect the overall well-being of the public.”

First, this is a terrible way to evaluate a legal opinion. Legal opinions are to interpret what the law says. Evaluating whether a legal opinion has correctly interpreted a law based on “how they affect the overall well-being of the public” is like interpreting the Bible to say there isn’t any hell, since to do so is to the detriment of the “well being” of the many people who are gonna party there for eternity.

The Court is to tell us what the law says.
If the law has a negative impact on the people, then it is up to the democratic process, the legislature passing a law, ameliorating the existing law that is negatively impacting people.

SCOTUS isn’t to be guided by John Stuart Mill’s utilitarianism. If any branch of government exists to utilize such a philosophy, it is the legislature and executive branch, who are vested with law making powers and the power to sign/veto a law based on such considerations.

Neither SCOTUS nor the Justices operate in a democratic manner and were not conceived to do so. They aren’t to be or behave in a democratic manner. The executive and especially the legislative branch are to behave in a democratic manner, as they are, by design, elected by the people through the ballot to represent their interests and legislate, and directly answerable to the people by the ballot box. And it is these two branches, by design, who are to behave, if they choose, in a manner that is in the best interests of the people, the best interests of the people who elected them to the legislature.

SCOTUS exists, detached from the people, independent of the people, for the purpose of determining what the law says free from the passions, interests, prejudices, of the electorate. SCOTUS was made independent of the people for the very purpose of being free from their interests, free from the pressures of the people, to be free from the pressure of the ballot box, in evaluating what the law says.

The “best interests” of the people, in the U.S. system, is a SCOTUS that adheres to determining what the law says, not politicking of what is in the “best interests of the people.”

No, you’re right. It’s just a nonsensical pipe dream to expect Biden to completely refresh the court (pretty sure he can’t) and insert justices who will diligently and dispassionately tell us what the law says, since the court has already been packed in a partisan fashion, so evening it out — or skewing it for progress — is the next best option.

 

[NotreDame]

Well if we take religious freedom to the level the supreme court has lately, then payote is a drug used for religious ceremonies, to limit is to fringe upon their religious rights.

I am unsure what decisions lately have risen “to the level” of a religious right to use drugs in religious ceremonies. Perhaps you can specifically identify those decisions.

 

[hedrick]

No, you’re right. It’s just a nonsensical pipe dream to expect Biden to completely refresh the court (pretty sure he can’t) and insert justices who will diligently and dispassionately tell us what the law says, since the court has already been packed in a partisan fashion, so evening it out — or skewing it for progress — is the next best option.

It's very unlikely that there will be an opportunity to change the court. There's been some thinking about what to do other than just packing the court by expanding the number. One goal is to find ways to make control of nominations less of a political prize. There are some interesting ideas. But I don't see any change happening.

 

[NotreDame]

No, you’re right. It’s just a nonsensical pipe dream to expect Biden to completely refresh the court (pretty sure he can’t) and insert justices who will diligently and dispassionately tell us what the law says, since the court has already been packed in a partisan fashion, so evening it out — or skewing it for progress — is the next best option.

First, while terminology can be a nightmare, the Court has not been “packed.” “Packing” is understood as adjusting, by law, the number of seats on the federal bench for the express purpose of a specific president to fill those seats with individuals of a particular persuasion. This is not new, and the Federalist controlled Congress passed a law creating many new federal district judiciary seats for then President Adams (the first from 1797-1801) to promptly fill these seats with federalist judges. Incoming President denounced the move, calling it an attempt to pack the federal judiciary with federalists.

The next attempt to “pack” the federal bench, this time SCOTUS, was FDR.

So, the Court has not been “packed” at all.

Furthermore, have you ever paused to ponder the significance of the phrase “partisan fashion”? What does this phrase mean? Does it mean the decisions are erroneous? Which decisions? Does it mean a certain methodology for interpreting the constitution is erroneous? If so, which?

In my experience, the phrase has meant the justices have a view of the constitution contrary to someone’s beliefs and contrary to their own view of the constitution. In short, they are partisan because I do not agree with their views and dislike their views.

so evening it out — or skewing it for progress — is the next best option

Intriguing. This tells me something about what you perceive as “progress.” To you, progress “skews” in one direction. What makes that particular direction progress?

And it’s the next best option for whom? For people with your own notions of progress?